What if Mussolini joined the allies in Wolrd War 2?

Deleted member 1487

Ok then they have more ground to fight fore if the front is pushed further away then the logical conclusion would be more ground to fight for just because the border is further out does not stop the germans getting stalemated there. Now the germans were very effective and the italians not so. This does not change the fact the germans are at a disadvantage here in general lets look at otl campaign in italy a rather heavily outgunned and manned and small german force held against the whole of the economic and military might of the allies for two years in terrain far easier than the alps on the whole. At the campaigns height the allies had 1,300,000 on the peninsula why the germans only 430,00 that is a massive difference and they held out against them for 2 years. Now you have the full italian military and likely french and British assistantince with their full economic might behind them italy will not be short supplies. How the hell are the germans going to beat that they can easily stalemate it but they sure as hell cant beat it. This is in terrain far worse or just as bad.
Sorry that reply was meant for wiking yes i agree with you.

Your reply if anything shows much more effective the Germans were than the Allies despite their gross material advantage; ITTL the Germans would have a material advantage over Italy assuming they postpone it until France is overrun.

The break for you are referring got nearly completely overturned.
You have to clarify what you mean, I don't understand what you're referring to.

And you are right this isn’t the same army it is one geared in general to fight this style of battle. Germany for the past year would of been burning up reasources like carzy to crush the french because as we saw otl the french continued to fight like utter dogs until they recieved orders to surrender if those orders never come the french will need to be overrun just like in calias which will burn alot. Also where the broder happens is important because the quickest way i can put it is it gives them far more time to blunt the offensive and it is in terrain far different then ww1 and possibly worse for the germans. i would like to point out that the break through in both capotetto and on the the slav border was completely reversed once italy had gotten its shit together and got diaz in charge. Now while their organisation was laughable it still would of been enough if not then it will just settle on the alpiennes where the line is alot shorter and the germans would of burnt alot of manpower getting there. If they want to take russia on they cant throw those reasources in if they abandon russia then they are eventually going to come a knocking anyways as stalins intention
The French, who were much more prepared to fight a modern war than Italy, were thoroughly trounced in May 1940. Even after defeating France they were able to immediately launch the Battle of Britain despite the unfavorable circumstances and then turn and fight in North Africa, the Balkans, and the USSR starting less than 6 months later. Invading Italy won't require the resources that were required to take down France and even waiting a few months to recover after France or until Spring 1941 they'd be able to move on Italy thereafter, while Italy too will be burning up their own resources recovering from the Fall of France as they would more likely than not send the bulk of their army to fight in France especially in June, which would not be favorable circumstances for them.

By the time the surrender order came IOTL for the French they were pretty much defeated and while the individual acts of heroism of the French soldier were unquestionably brave it wasn't changing the situation, which was completely collapse of organized resistance. The contribution of Italian forces to France in May and June 1940 would help delay that collapse, if only because France would be unlikely to surrender as they did IOTL, but it would be difficult to see their expeditionary forces changing the outcome given the number actually available to deploy to France by 1940. Given their performance IOTL 1940 they'd probably just get swept up in the French collapse, as they weren't even as well prepared as the French, while also having the handicap of fighting in a foreign country with long supply lines, not speaking the language, and dealing with a heavily flawed Allied command structure on top of their particular deficiencies at the time.

IOTL the Italian recovery in 1917 at Caporetto was due to the logistical problems WW1 armies had moving rapidly over distance, which killed just about every country's offensives in that war. WW2 fixed that issue because of the advent of decently reliable truck transport/supply as well as air transport, improved rail links between the Alps, and of course improved communication and lessons learned from WW1 about large offensive logistics. So what stopped the Central Powers in WW1 in Italy in 1917 is not going to be a factor ITTL, not least of which because of much much less prepared to fight Italy is in 1939-40 as compared to 1917 after years of war, economic mobilization, and of course experienced gained. ITTL Italy is likely to have sent it's best prepared forces to France and lost them there or at least had them tied down there, so is unable to use them to guard the Slovenian border where the only real route to invade Italy actually lies. Given that the Soviets, who were vastly more capable of modern warfare than the Italians were, couldn't stop the Germans even in really rough terrain without Sevastopol level defenses, which the Italians lacked, the Italians, even with French and British support would be unlikely to, especially so close to Germany and German air bases.

In 1941 the Soviets only managed to do so after 5 million casualties and hundreds of miles of lost terrain, so it is unlikely the Apennines would either, especially if Northern Italy is lost, with most of Italy's industry.

Stalin didn't intend to attack Germany unless they were utterly falling apart and that wouldn't have been possible given the state of Soviet military forces in 1941 or 1942. Even Stalin thought he'd only be ready for defensive war in 1942. So likely Stalin is a non-factor to help the Allies until 1943 if at all, because it is hard to see the war still going and Germany worn down enough to make it easy enough for Stalin by his own pessimistic reckoning even by 1943.


But it's not the same terrain...
1200px-Battle_of_Caporetto.jpg

For the most part the hights of the Julian and Dinaric Alps were in the Austrians' rear, with the Italians occupying mere foothills, affording minimal depth before the Padan Plain begins.

The post WWI border gave the heights to Italy, and additionally gave them many more kilometres of mountainous depth.
northern-italy-austria-yugoslavia-eastern-alps-hungary-vienna-times-1922-map-T2KK64.jpg

The two frontiers are dramatically different with regard to terrain (foothills vs mountain ranges) and depth.

I'm talking about Germany invading via Yugoslavia, not the Austrian border; via Austria and the Brenner Pass it is basically impossible even if Italy is quite weak. The Slovenian-Italy border is very similar to the terrain that Caporetto was fought in, which is why I was making the comparison there and of course why Italy focused it's main offensive effort there in WW1. Once the Germans get through the Istrian hills/small mountains, which they should be able to given how the German mountain troops flanked the Metaxas Line in 1941 in similar terrain.
 
I'm talking about Germany invading via Yugoslavia
As am I. Not sure where you got the idea I wasn't.

The Slovenian-Italy border is very similar to the terrain that Caporetto was fought in, which is why I was making the comparison there and of course why Italy focused it's main offensive effort there in WW1.
But it's not. My entire post was explaining how it isn't.

Once the Germans get through the
... Julian and Dinaric Alps?

You realize that the border change puts two additional mountain ranges on the Italian side of the border, right? Actually no, you clearly don't realize that given that you're still trying to argue that the spattering of foothills around Caporetto are essentially the same thing as the new mountainous frontier.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

As am I. Not sure where you got the idea I wasn't.
You talking about mountains vs foothills. The heights around Caporetto where the breakthrough happened were about the same height as the high ground between Ljubljana and Trieste.

But it's not. My entire post was explaining how it isn't.
Your post claims that, but it was incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caporetto
To protect the attackers' flanks, Alpine Troops infiltrated the strong points and batteries along the crests of the adjoining ridges, Matajur and Kolovrat, laying out their telephone lines as they advanced to maintain contact with their artillery.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matajur
Elevation 1,650 m (5,410 ft)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolovrat_(mountain_ridge)
It extends about 7 km at an elevation between 800 and 1150 m.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caporetto
Mountains and main steps
Monte Nero ( Krn ), 2245 m; Monte Rosso ( Batognica ), 2163 m; Monte Lansevizza ( Lanževica ), m 2003; Monte Bogatin ( Bogatin ), m 1977; Passo Bogatin ( Vratca ), m 1810; Masnig ( Maselnik ), m 1906; Monte Sleme, 1487 m; Monte Stol ( Stol ), m 1673; Monte Starischi ( Starijski vrh ), 1136 m; Monte Cucco di Luico ( Kuk ), 1243 m; Monte Pleccia ( Pleče ), m 1298 or 1302; Monte Capraro ( Kožljak ), m 1602; Mount Ursig ( Vršič ), m 1897; Monte Vrata, m 2014; Grande Lemez (Veliki Lemež ), m 2041; Smogar ( Šmohor ), m 1921; Krasji Vrh , m 1773; Muzec, m 1612; Monte Volni ( Volnik ), 794 m

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/General_map_of_slovenia.svg
1024px-General_map_of_slovenia.svg.png

The Nanos is 1313m, the Golack is 1495m, Slavnik is 1028m. Those are the three highest points near the rail line from Ljubljana to Trieste. Why attack through the Julian Alps when the necessary rail line runs well south of them and then opens up into plains well south of those mountains?

... Julian and Dinaric Alps?
What about them? The Julian isn't where the attack would happen and the section of the Dinaric Alps where the attack would is lower than the heights around Caporetto. You might want to check on these things.

You realize that the border change puts two additional mountain ranges on the Italian side of the border, right? Actually no, you clearly don't realize that given that you're still trying to argue that the spattering of foothills around Caporetto are essentially the same thing as the new mountainous frontier.
Which were no higher and in fact less high than the heights taken during the Caporetto attack. It's hilarious you think you know what you're talking about when the actual numbers don't back you up.
 
the assumption is that for the invasion the Germans either invade Yugoslavia or more likely get permission to use the territory to invade Italy, which then removes Italy as a threat to Yugoslavia, puts them on side with all their other potential enemies neighboring them, and probably even gets Stalin's support due to his goal of keeping Germany distracted and damaging the Allies.

the Yugoslavs fared pretty well against Italy in Albania albeit a futile move? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Yugoslavia#Yugoslav_Albanian_offensive

if Germany has historical collaboration with USSR (or more), there is more than decent chance Yugoslavia could be enlisted in the fighting too? the coup in 1941 was against them joining an Axis including Italy not primarily directed against Germany?
 

MatthewB

Banned
Not sure I follow. Without Italy as an ally, Hitler doesn't go into North Africa.
And neither does Britain and Australia. Maybe Malaya doesn’t fall.

What does the Italian navy do? Does Italy attack the French fleet after the fall of France instead of the British doing the deed?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

the Yugoslavs fared pretty well against Italy in Albania albeit a futile move? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Yugoslavia#Yugoslav_Albanian_offensive

if Germany has historical collaboration with USSR (or more), there is more than decent chance Yugoslavia could be enlisted in the fighting too? the coup in 1941 was against them joining an Axis including Italy not primarily directed against Germany?
IOTL the government did join the Axis for a time before the coup. If Stalin was willing to back Germany there is the chance they would allow the move through if not join in the attack in some way to regain the territory lost to Italy in 1919 and IOTL regained after WW2.
 
Your reply if anything shows much more effective the Germans were than the Allies despite their gross material advantage; ITTL the Germans would have a material advantage over Italy assuming they postpone it until France is overrun.

Either that or going through mountains is freaking hard! If you want Rome you have to go through the mountains. The Italian Alps aren't exactly foothills! The Wallies had a much easier going in France.
 
Your reply if anything shows much more effective the Germans were than the Allies despite their gross material advantage; ITTL the Germans would have a material advantage over Italy assuming they postpone it until France is overrun.


You have to clarify what you mean, I don't understand what you're referring to.


The French, who were much more prepared to fight a modern war than Italy, were thoroughly trounced in May 1940. Even after defeating France they were able to immediately launch the Battle of Britain despite the unfavorable circumstances and then turn and fight in North Africa, the Balkans, and the USSR starting less than 6 months later. Invading Italy won't require the resources that were required to take down France and even waiting a few months to recover after France or until Spring 1941 they'd be able to move on Italy thereafter, while Italy too will be burning up their own resources recovering from the Fall of France as they would more likely than not send the bulk of their army to fight in France especially in June, which would not be favorable circumstances for them.

By the time the surrender order came IOTL for the French they were pretty much defeated and while the individual acts of heroism of the French soldier were unquestionably brave it wasn't changing the situation, which was completely collapse of organized resistance. The contribution of Italian forces to France in May and June 1940 would help delay that collapse, if only because France would be unlikely to surrender as they did IOTL, but it would be difficult to see their expeditionary forces changing the outcome given the number actually available to deploy to France by 1940. Given their performance IOTL 1940 they'd probably just get swept up in the French collapse, as they weren't even as well prepared as the French, while also having the handicap of fighting in a foreign country with long supply lines, not speaking the language, and dealing with a heavily flawed Allied command structure on top of their particular deficiencies at the time.

IOTL the Italian recovery in 1917 at Caporetto was due to the logistical problems WW1 armies had moving rapidly over distance, which killed just about every country's offensives in that war. WW2 fixed that issue because of the advent of decently reliable truck transport/supply as well as air transport, improved rail links between the Alps, and of course improved communication and lessons learned from WW1 about large offensive logistics. So what stopped the Central Powers in WW1 in Italy in 1917 is not going to be a factor ITTL, not least of which because of much much less prepared to fight Italy is in 1939-40 as compared to 1917 after years of war, economic mobilization, and of course experienced gained. ITTL Italy is likely to have sent it's best prepared forces to France and lost them there or at least had them tied down there, so is unable to use them to guard the Slovenian border where the only real route to invade Italy actually lies. Given that the Soviets, who were vastly more capable of modern warfare than the Italians were, couldn't stop the Germans even in really rough terrain without Sevastopol level defenses, which the Italians lacked, the Italians, even with French and British support would be unlikely to, especially so close to Germany and German air bases.

In 1941 the Soviets only managed to do so after 5 million casualties and hundreds of miles of lost terrain, so it is unlikely the Apennines would either, especially if Northern Italy is lost, with most of Italy's industry.

Stalin didn't intend to attack Germany unless they were utterly falling apart and that wouldn't have been possible given the state of Soviet military forces in 1941 or 1942. Even Stalin thought he'd only be ready for defensive war in 1942. So likely Stalin is a non-factor to help the Allies until 1943 if at all, because it is hard to see the war still going and Germany worn down enough to make it easy enough for Stalin by his own pessimistic reckoning even by 1943.




I'm talking about Germany invading via Yugoslavia, not the Austrian border; via Austria and the Brenner Pass it is basically impossible even if Italy is quite weak. The Slovenian-Italy border is very similar to the terrain that Caporetto was fought in, which is why I was making the comparison there and of course why Italy focused it's main offensive effort there in WW1. Once the Germans get through the Istrian hills/small mountains, which they should be able to given how the German mountain troops flanked the Metaxas Line in 1941 in similar terrain.
You bring up a lot of fair points and i will concede a fair few such as france being mostly defeated and the combat of ww1. Now the confusing bit i need to clarify that was just me referencing something i would later say sorry about that need to clarify. I have been using my phone to type from lack of a computer. Now there is one thing i am going to challenge you on and that is the resource assumption that it would take as much or less. France especially compared to italy is incredibly flat and the perfect for the use of the tank divisions that won them that conflict which nearly got completely severed by british assault on the elongated line hell if the french actually believed the reports they were getting that the germans were moving through the ardennes then they could of blunted the attack. And this is the core difference between italy and germany in france once through the ardnennes they were free to slice up france. In italy that is impossible, you cant even compare the two because they require two different ways of approach the blitzkreig that broke france cant operate and would never work in that terrain. Tanks are ussless in this sernario which removes one of germany’s strongest move. And this isn’t even like the ardennes because it is far worse and is on the italians side it would be if the french had the ardennes to their back rather than facing it. The attack on france was pretty much germany rolling straight 20’s here they cannot do that. And the luftwaffe would not have the numbers to fight in britain and italy and do any meaningful damage. All in all means that germany will be facing the brutal line this is pretty much if germany thought they wanted to try and smash through the maginot as their strategy and this time the maginot is built into some of the most hostile terrain for attacking forces. Also what makes you think germany would have more reasources? italy is open open too most forgein trad unlike otl and why in god would Mussolini send the bulk of his forces into france sure a significant ampunt like max a third which would likely retreat south with french in toe back into italy when it was clear france was going to fall the rest would likely be kept back too defend italy in the alps which. Also if germany is fighting italy then they are going to need to send troops to the italian border otherwise they are going to be overrun in the south so that is going to pull vital infantry away from the assualt. So expect more french forces too survive and a much more close rung battle of france rather than the floor mop we got the germans will still win but by no means as cleanly they did otl. Now unless they get support from the soviets their plunder economy will only be able to sustain them so long. All in all it is unlikely they breakthrough if they do it will be costly and at most they will be stalemated along the smaller ardennes line.
 
You talking about mountains vs foothills. The heights around Caporetto where the breakthrough happened were about the same height as the high ground between Ljubljana and Trieste.


Your post claims that, but it was incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caporetto

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matajur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolovrat_(mountain_ridge)


https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caporetto


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/General_map_of_slovenia.svg

The Nanos is 1313m, the Golack is 1495m, Slavnik is 1028m. Those are the three highest points near the rail line from Ljubljana to Trieste. Why attack through the Julian Alps when the necessary rail line runs well south of them and then opens up into plains well south of those mountains?


What about them? The Julian isn't where the attack would happen and the section of the Dinaric Alps where the attack would is lower than the heights around Caporetto. You might want to check on these things.


Which were no higher and in fact less high than the heights taken during the Caporetto attack. It's hilarious you think you know what you're talking about when the actual numbers don't back you up.
Hight isn't all that relevant (well it is, but it's far from the main concern), foothills can be plenty tall. Density of ridges and depth of mountainous terrain are what matter.

From the peaks of Nanos and Golack (less so Slavnik) it's mountains as far as the eye can see, and that continues on for dozens upon dozens of kilometres. Meanwhile from Matajur it's what, ~20km to the Padan?

If the Italians are using the sort of flexible defence Diaz employed at the Second Battle of the Piave*, then the Italians can pretty much just keep falling back to the next ridge until Germany's alpine troops are exhausted. At Caporetto once the Austro-Germans broke through the Italians were retreating non-stop until they hit the Piave.

*and the double lines of the Vallo Alpino would seem to indicate that a defence in depth was the plan.
mm0114_6.jpg
 
Last edited:
Either that or going through mountains is freaking hard! If you want Rome you have to go through the mountains. The Italian Alps aren't exactly foothills! The Wallies had a much easier going in France.

do we think Germany would want more than Northern Italy? unless a sizable contingent of Italians to form an "Italian Social Republic" ITTL?
 
do we think Germany would want more than Northern Italy?

Arguably it would make sense just to stop at Northern Italy. If the Germans have taken the Po Valley then the Italians are effectively out of the war as a power themselves with most of their industry lost and an impending humanitarian crisis in the south that the British now need to devote their scant resources towards. I can imagine such a proposition being more attractive than having to slog down through more mountains only to inherit a wrecked country with a starving population.
 
do we think Germany would want more than Northern Italy? unless a sizable contingent of Italians to form an "Italian Social Republic" ITTL?
Arguably it would make sense just to stop at Northern Italy. If the Germans have taken the Po Valley then the Italians are effectively out of the war as a power themselves with most of their industry lost and an impending humanitarian crisis in the south that the British now need to devote their scant resources towards. I can imagine such a proposition being more attractive than having to slog down through more mountains only to inherit a wrecked country with a starving population.
while the north certainly formed most of the industry meaning they are unable to do anything for a while. the Germans will need to keep a sizeable force in the north while Italy is still fighting to keep any partisans in check as they certainly wont find the Italians in any accommodating mood. now this is all secondary and not really a problem no the problem would likely be the still active Italian military which would be looking to retake the valley and unlike the rest of italy it is much more open to attackers. the core thing about italy to my understanding is that most of the country is a defenders wet dream such as the alps but once you break into the valley it is much easier to deal with, not completely vast river systems don't help but that is really minor.

i must ask what humanitarian crises because a lot of the troubles inflicted onto the south were there because of the trade embargo's and isolation inflicted onto them by the war however, in this timeline it is open to the greater markets. it is going to cost italy but it will at least assist in any food crises. also it would be likely even if the north is not taken which imo is likely without mass effort by the Germans, will likely see some industry built in the south and developed this will definitly take time so you won't see any movements until the later half of the war especially if the northern industry is removed.
 

Deleted member 1487

I would also like to propose to you will they still attack russia?
I don't see how they could so long as the Allies have a foothold on the continent. Especially with bomber bases in range of Germany. After all Barbarossa was delayed at least in part due to the need to secure the Balkans before Barbarossa.

You bring up a lot of fair points and i will concede a fair few such as france being mostly defeated and the combat of ww1. Now the confusing bit i need to clarify that was just me referencing something i would later say sorry about that need to clarify. I have been using my phone to type from lack of a computer. Now there is one thing i am going to challenge you on and that is the resource assumption that it would take as much or less. France especially compared to italy is incredibly flat and the perfect for the use of the tank divisions that won them that conflict which nearly got completely severed by british assault on the elongated line hell if the french actually believed the reports they were getting that the germans were moving through the ardennes then they could of blunted the attack. And this is the core difference between italy and germany in france once through the ardnennes they were free to slice up france. In italy that is impossible, you cant even compare the two because they require two different ways of approach the blitzkreig that broke france cant operate and would never work in that terrain. Tanks are ussless in this sernario which removes one of germany’s strongest move. And this isn’t even like the ardennes because it is far worse and is on the italians side it would be if the french had the ardennes to their back rather than facing it. The attack on france was pretty much germany rolling straight 20’s here they cannot do that. And the luftwaffe would not have the numbers to fight in britain and italy and do any meaningful damage. All in all means that germany will be facing the brutal line this is pretty much if germany thought they wanted to try and smash through the maginot as their strategy and this time the maginot is built into some of the most hostile terrain for attacking forces. Also what makes you think germany would have more reasources? italy is open open too most forgein trad unlike otl and why in god would Mussolini send the bulk of his forces into france sure a significant ampunt like max a third which would likely retreat south with french in toe back into italy when it was clear france was going to fall the rest would likely be kept back too defend italy in the alps which. Also if germany is fighting italy then they are going to need to send troops to the italian border otherwise they are going to be overrun in the south so that is going to pull vital infantry away from the assualt. So expect more french forces too survive and a much more close rung battle of france rather than the floor mop we got the germans will still win but by no means as cleanly they did otl. Now unless they get support from the soviets their plunder economy will only be able to sustain them so long. All in all it is unlikely they breakthrough if they do it will be costly and at most they will be stalemated along the smaller ardennes line.
No problem about the clarification, I just want to be able to answer your points; and go ahead challenge away.

France is quite flat in parts, in parts quite rugged, but yes Italy is worse overall. Though Greece and Yugoslavia overall are at least as rugged as Italy and tanks were extremely useful there. Plus it wasn't like in 1943-45 tanks were a huge part of the Italian campaign for the Allies and Germans. But that aside German mountain troops were used extensively throughout the war and they were elite troops who fought extremely well in difficult circumstances, as in WW1; in 1940 they had three and set up at least 2-3 more around October. So for 1941 they'd have at least 6 such divisions to use that would be ideal for the fighting in Italy.

As to the Luftwaffe, I agree it would be either the Battle of Britain or Italy; IMHO it would be Italy, as the first priority is to remove continent threats ASAP before worrying about the British Isles. Though IMHO Case Red, the second half of the Battle of France, would be dragged out due to Italian contributions and French willingness to fight on thanks to Italian helps and security in the Mediterranean, so much of the crucial fighting for Italy would actually happen in France from June-August in France in 1940 and prevent the Battle of Britain entirely, but that would likely end up with the Italian army worn down and in a bad position come late 1940 or Spring 1941 due to their industrial and overall military deficits compared to the other great powers.

In terms of whether France could have stopped the Germans moving through the Ardennes if they believed reports, I would suggest you look at the role of the Luftwaffe in dissolving the French reserves before they could even reach the front and then the very slow reaction time of French divisions on up to threats, which is what ultimately doomed them. French high down to mid-level communications and command were...deficient to say the least. As brave and stout as the French soldier and officer was the organizational problems and lack of effective air support doomed them. It was a lot more than simply Germany getting lucky, it was the organizational differences between Germany and France (and really even the British to a lesser extent, with the Italians even worse off than the French) that enabled their defeat in 1940.

Italy was quite poor as of 1940, as Mussolini had frittered away resources on the Spanish Civil War and their defensive lines in the Alps against France in the 1930s, so despite access to foreign trade they didn't really have much in the way of money to buy what they needed and IOTL relied on German aid to prop up their economy. I say Germany would be better off to some degree, because all of the coal, steel, and oil they gave to Italy as an ally would instead be saved for their own economy/forces, while they still can then save all the trade they get from the USSR for themselves.

Why would Italy send a large part of their best troops to France? Because if France falls then Italy is next on the invasion list and they know they won't have the strength on their own to stop an invasion. Not only that, but by aiding the Allies it makes them look good for the peace deal as a ally, while the decisive campaign of the war to the point is being fought in France, not Italy.

Yes Germany would have to keep some troops in Austria to defend against a potential Italian attack, but the Brenner Pass was selected by Italy as the post-war border after WW1 because it was effectively impossible to attack through and the Italian do NOT want to rerun WW1 through even worse terrain to try and invade Austria, especially when coming out on the other side will result in highly funneled troops who are very vulnerable to counterattack and aren't going to be advancing very far. Which is why Germany wouldn't want to attack there ITTL either, just open it up from behind via the Slovenian route. I don't think the Yugoslavs would be interested in letting Italy use their territory to attack Austria, so the Italians are extremely limited in what they can actually do against Germany in 1939-40, especially over winter as moving in the Alps then is not what you want to be doing probably even as early as October. Which leaves France as the only place for Italian divisions to really make an impact, hence sending their best troops to that front. But even then there isn't really a place they could go in May 1940 that would make any sort of decisive impact on that campaign; at best they end up rushing into Belgium along with the British and French and get pocketed; that means then either retreating without equipment or getting left behind, which is probably the most likely.

Either that or going through mountains is freaking hard! If you want Rome you have to go through the mountains. The Italian Alps aren't exactly foothills! The Wallies had a much easier going in France.
And fighting through quality German troops is tough, as in Normandy or Belarus. By the time of Normandy though the German army had been pretty trashed on both eastern and western fronts and simply ran out of men, so that when Dragoon happened the very low quality troops there folded quickly and retreated ASAP to the German border with France. So yes while fighting through mountains is tough, it depends on the quality of troops defending and attacking. See Greece for how much mountains impeding the Germans in 1941 against Greek and British troops and how much they impeded the Italians in 1940 and 1941. Or how the Italians folded in the desert in 1940 and in Greece in 1941 when counterattacked in the mountains of Greece.

Hight isn't all that relevant (well it is, but it's far from the main concern), foothills can be plenty tall. Density of ridges and depth of mountainous terrain are what matter.

From the peaks of Nanos and Golack (less so Slavnik) it's mountains as far as the eye can see, and that continues on for dozens upon dozens of kilometres. Meanwhile from Matajur it's what, ~20km to the Padan?

If the Italians are using the sort of flexible defence Diaz employed at the Second Battle of the Piave*, then the Italians can pretty much just keep falling back to the next ridge until Germany's alpine troops are exhausted. At Caporetto once the Austro-Germans broke through the Italians were retreating non-stop until they hit the Piave.
20km isn't as far as the eye could see? As I read the map it is 50km from Ljubljana to the Nanos, but the Italian border is not at Ljubljana. From the Nanos to Trieste it is about 20km. So yeah it is a bit further from the Italian border to the Adriatic and flat ground, but again that didn't seem to stop the Germans fighting through multiple defensive lines in Greece against the British and Greek troops and that terrain was worse than the area we're talking about between Slovenia and Trieste:
https://i.imgur.com/tlxiP0D.jpg

443px-Battle_of_Greece_WWII_1941_map-en.svg.png


*and the double lines of the Vallo Alpino would seem to indicate that a defence in depth was the plan.
mm0114_6.jpg

Since you apparently missed that part of the discussion earlier, I will refer you to my post on the subject:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...es-in-wolrd-war-2.471894/page-4#post-19238751
There is more than just this post, but this is a particularly relevant part:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallo_alpino_orientale
Unlike the works of the Western Alpine Wall and the Alpine Wall in South Tyrol , here the works are more modest in size and mostly armed with only machine guns.

while the north certainly formed most of the industry meaning they are unable to do anything for a while. the Germans will need to keep a sizeable force in the north while Italy is still fighting to keep any partisans in check as they certainly wont find the Italians in any accommodating mood. now this is all secondary and not really a problem no the problem would likely be the still active Italian military which would be looking to retake the valley and unlike the rest of italy it is much more open to attackers. the core thing about italy to my understanding is that most of the country is a defenders wet dream such as the alps but once you break into the valley it is much easier to deal with, not completely vast river systems don't help but that is really minor.

i must ask what humanitarian crises because a lot of the troubles inflicted onto the south were there because of the trade embargo's and isolation inflicted onto them by the war however, in this timeline it is open to the greater markets. it is going to cost italy but it will at least assist in any food crises. also it would be likely even if the north is not taken which imo is likely without mass effort by the Germans, will likely see some industry built in the south and developed this will definitly take time so you won't see any movements until the later half of the war especially if the northern industry is removed.
Most Italian food production was in the South as I recall, so the crisis would actually be in the North of Italy if conquered. Any partisan action would be brutally suppressed by the Germans in a way that would make OTL partisan reprisals look tame in comparison, since Italy would be considered and early traitor, unlike OTL where there were still Italians fighting on Germany's side into 1945 and actively helping fight the Italian partisans. Plus the North would likely be really smashed up in the fighting and pillaged to aid Germany's economy; given the important role Italian labor played in the German economy even early in the war, it is likely that like in Poland and occupied western Europe (and Italy later in WW2) mass round ups of military/working age males will happen to work on German farms/in industry, so the pool of men capable of resistance would be quite low (either in the military and evacuated south, dead/wounded in the fighting, or rounded up for labor either by the invaders or the Italians themselves).

The Italians wouldn't be able to retake any lost territory without huge help from their allies...which is going to be highly limited for quite some time if France is already defeated on the continent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
20km isn't as far as the eye could see? As I read the map it is 50km from Ljubljana to the Nanos, but the Italian border is not at Ljubljana. From the Nanos to Trieste it is about 20km. So yeah it is a bit further from the Italian border to the Adriatic and flat ground, but again that didn't seem to stop the Germans fighting through multiple defensive lines in Greece against the British and Greek troops and that terrain was worse than the area we're talking about between Slovenia and Trieste:
https://i.imgur.com/tlxiP0D.jpg
Ight, never mind then.

Since you apparently missed that part of the discussion earlier, I will refer you to my post on the subject
No, I saw it, I wasn't implying that it was fully built or particularly strong, only that the construction plans indicate that the doctrine to be employed in the area would be defence in depth.
 

Deleted member 1487

No, I saw it, I wasn't implying that it was fully built or particularly strong, only that the construction plans indicate that the doctrine to be employed in the area would be defence in depth.
The theory was there in terms of line redundancy, the question is the ability to implement it without really having a line in place and needing to rely on field divisions to actually cover the line. Of course they'd try to defend in depth, but they tried that in WW1 and didn't work out very well either; in WW2 in the face of armor and air support, especially CAS with dive bombers, cluster bombs, and incendiaries, they wouldn't be in a great position to hold against a massed attack. Even if they were dug in in bunkers, see Sedan for how well that worked out. Not sure the Italians would do better given the OTL 1940 with troops and defensive positions in Bardia and Tobruk.

But again everything is contingent on how the fighting in France turns out. Likely IMHO an invasion wouldn't come until Spring 1941 and may be further delayed depending on what Yugoslavia says to Hitler's demands for an alliance.
 

Marc

Donor
Thinking of the poetic justice after the eventual defeat of Germany (and they will lose, political paranoid schizophrenia is eventually fatal) that Italy will be part of the occupying powers in Austria...
 
while the north certainly formed most of the industry meaning they are unable to do anything for a while. the Germans will need to keep a sizeable force in the north while Italy is still fighting to keep any partisans in check as they certainly wont find the Italians in any accommodating mood.

That's true but occupying the whole country would only exacerbate that problem, not to mention the soldiers lost in doing so. The effectiveness of the Italian partisans will also be questionable in such a scenario, I can't see the PCd'I being willing to cooperate too closesly with the state nor other anti-fascist groups, certainly not at the level of the CLN. Although on the other hand the expectation of the German invasion might have led to better "stay behind" preparations than the surprise of the invasion allowed IOTL.

the problem would likely be the still active Italian military which would be looking to retake the valley and unlike the rest of italy it is much more open to attackers. the core thing about italy to my understanding is that most of the country is a defenders wet dream such as the alps but once you break into the valley it is much easier to deal with, not completely vast river systems don't help but that is really minor.

It's hard to see if there would be much of an Italian army left after the Germans have occupied the north. Even presuming they haven't been entirely annihilated in the battle itself they're going to struggle to rebuild with the most strategically vital areas of the country in German hands. Liberating the northern portion of the country is going to be a daunting prospect, even with British and presumably American help. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the Fascist Grand Council opted for a separate peace in such a scenario.

i must ask what humanitarian crises because a lot of the troubles inflicted onto the south were there because of the trade embargo's and isolation inflicted onto them by the war however, in this timeline it is open to the greater markets. it is going to cost italy but it will at least assist in any food crises.

It took a concerted effort from the WAllies to stave off famine in the south IOTL and even then you had bread riots in Naples and the noticeable effects of malnutrition in children decades later. Although the south won't have been a war zone here, it will still be a developing country that's lost its most industrialised half, likely a mass influx of refugees and a good chance that the Germans will be bombing Naples and other ports. Granted that's not a guarantee that there will be a humanitarian crisis but the building blocks will still be there, particularly with Mussolini's inept regime exacerbating things. Life will be worse in the occupied north but ultimately the Germans showed IOTL they had a compelte disregard for the suffering of the local population, even when they weren't the direct cause, whereas Mussolini will have to focus most of his energy on keeping the country afloat whilst the British are forced, at least initially, to provide support whilst trying to stave off a blockade of their own country.
 
Top